This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I agree - You should question why the four liberal justices ruled according to their ideology and not the constitution they are tasked to uphold.

Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.

Last edited by poweRob; 06-30-14 at 08:43 PM.

Originally Posted by Moderate Right

The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office.

This isn't a pro-life victory, but if you want to delude yourself by all means. This is a victory for religious freedom. In the end what these drugs do or don't do are irrelvant. It is the fact that the Greens feel that they do something against their religion as they interpret it. All the other forms of conception, which many Roman Catholics see as also against their "pro-life" stance, do not violate the Greens' religious principles.

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.

This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.

Technically it is "closed" corporations, but it is pretty much family run. Think of Bluth family from Arrested Development.

Technically it is "closed" corporations, but it is pretty much family run. Think of Bluth family from Arrested Development.

Thank you. The technical term for these things always averts me. But as long as everyone knows what is meant I think is the important thing. Closed Corporation, I got it as long as my old brain remembers it.

This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Alito states in his opinion that the ruling only applies to contraception. Its no broader than that.

Well, if it's that's true and it's no broader than that, it's just a case of legislating from the bench. The Senate considered and rejected the exemption HL wanted, and now the SC approved that bill through judicial fiat. But I don't know why the ruling would be limited to just contraception. It involves broader stakes than that, and even those applauding the decision recognize that.

Also, you can certainly have strongly held beliefs about anything but that doesn't mean it trumps the constitutional rights of others.

You'll have to be specific. What in the constitution, for example, demands that businesses serve interracial couples? Laws require that, but the RFLA trumps those laws per the SC today, in some cases, perhaps, depending etc.

In no way does this ruling say religious rights trump all other laws. In fact, there was a famous/infamous case where someone was denied the right to take peyote since that individuals religious right did not trump the law. There's plenty of subtletys here involving the religious freedom restoration act and others.

Yes, but the RFRA effectively overruled that SC holding with peyote, or at least required a higher standard. So presumably that would be allowed under the new law.

And it doesn't say religious rights trump laws in all cases, just some cases, and in particular drugs used by women to plan for pregnancy. One reason people are concerned is the ruling does open a door to crazy claims.

P.S Please tell your liberal friends on FB and twitter to calm the hell down and breath into a paper bag. Its no wonder you people have the reputation of being histrionic knee jerkers.

I don't do Facebook and only read twitter occasionally. Sorry, can't help you there.

Thank you. The technical term for these things always averts me. But as long as everyone knows what is meant I think is the important thing. Closed Corporation, I got it as long as my old brain remembers it.

Actually I was technically wrong as it is closely held corporations rather closed. Errors like that is probably why I got a B in my Business Associations class. But joking aside yeah you pretty much have the right idea, legal names aren't all that important as long as you can tell the difference between a closely held and publicly traded corporations.

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.

But another company could and presumably will ban all forms, not just the 14 or 16. All they need to do is assert a deeply held religious conviction, and the courts presume it's legitimate. And it isn't limited to family companies, at least not anything I saw said so. The only limit is practical - it's less likely GE will assert deeply held religious beliefs as it has thousands of owners, but the ruling didn't say GE couldn't make the assertion.

From what I saw their ruling pertains only to "closely held" corporations/employers.
They are the ones most likely to object on the religious grounds established by the Religious Freedom Act to begin with.

That may be practically true, but the ruling didn't set any limits on who can file these claims. It certainly didn't specify any kind of 'closely held' test that anyone can identify. What if a Saudi buys 50.01% of Bank of America? Can it make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows?

But another company could and presumably will ban all forms, not just the 14 or 16. All they need to do is assert a deeply held religious conviction, and the courts presume it's legitimate. And it isn't limited to family companies, at least not anything I saw said so. The only limit is practical - it's less likely GE will assert deeply held religious beliefs as it has thousands of owners, but the ruling didn't say GE couldn't make the assertion.

So what? If you want to be free to ****, then feel free to be responsible for the consequences yourself. Why should anyone else be responsible for your behavioral choices?

I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...

Originally Posted by James D Hill

I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.